Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6405847" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm getting a bit tired of the topic myself, and finding it to be a longer and longer digression from the thread topic.&nbsp; To sum up, most methods of random chargen produce highly unbalanced characters.&nbsp; To resolve this, players that use chargen systems based on randomness (for example 1e D&amp;D), develop elaborate ways of controlling for the randomness to produce less unbalanced results.Because by definition, if you steer the results, it's no longer random.&nbsp; Which is pretty much exactly the examples that I gave, for example, &quot;At least not mostly scores lower than 11...&quot;, or &quot;At least not mostly scores lower than 13&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And obviously, from my explanation its pretty clear that I considered just about anything with at least 1 16+ playable.&nbsp; So, actually, I'd guess we are pretty much exactly on the same page - exactly as you'd expect if my theory that what was 'hopeless' was derived from expectations about the mathematical averages.As for the rest, it's not worth responding to at length.&nbsp; It would be fairly easy to devise point buy to allow for scores of any range, and in a well balanced system this would be fairly easy.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure the only reason that D20 didn't do this by default was an admission that not all abilities were created equal in the default game.&nbsp;&nbsp; Likewise, the choice to use point buy to create cookie cutter characters is just that - a choice.&nbsp; And if when presented with the opportunity to create cookie cutter characters you do, then chances are diversity isn't the reason you like randomness.&nbsp;&nbsp; Exceeding 25 point buy implies that there is a choice between using point buy and random - which there often isn't.&nbsp;&nbsp; I never encountered point buy as a choice for D&amp;D until I played 3e.&nbsp; So if the goal was to exceed the equivalent of 25 point buy, only by manipulating 'random' chargen could you consistently do that.&nbsp; However, even where point buy a choice, there would still be people who'd prefer random to it precisely because you can manipulate it and do so without really reflecting on the fact that you are doing so.&nbsp; There is a certain boost to ones self-esteem that comes from feeling you earned a 40+ point buy character when you 'randomly' roll it up, for example, that you don't get when the DM says, &quot;Sure, make 45 point buy characters.&quot;&nbsp; People would rather think of themselves as &quot;hard core&quot; and &quot;old school&quot; and whatever.Except no one actually plays characters with multiple 3s nearly as often as they play characters with multiple 18s - or at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; For one thing, if you actually did randomly generate a 1e character with 2 or more 5's or less, it's literally unplayable (by the rules, you qualify for no class).&nbsp; We've already established that the possibility of playing 1 or more very low stats doesn't really exist (except in parallel to also having mitigating good stats).&nbsp; Everyone in this conversation admits that do overs were done when the character was &quot;hopeless&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; So in fact the real results aren't sometimes high and sometimes low, but high and high.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that isn't actually random - though some of us aren't admitting it.&nbsp; You can pretend its random all you want, but after you've admitted in practice the methodology isn't random, it's no longer unreasonably to note that it isn't random regardless of what you claim about it being random.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6405847, member: 4937"] I'm getting a bit tired of the topic myself, and finding it to be a longer and longer digression from the thread topic. To sum up, most methods of random chargen produce highly unbalanced characters. To resolve this, players that use chargen systems based on randomness (for example 1e D&D), develop elaborate ways of controlling for the randomness to produce less unbalanced results. Because by definition, if you steer the results, it's no longer random. Which is pretty much exactly the examples that I gave, for example, "At least not mostly scores lower than 11...", or "At least not mostly scores lower than 13" And obviously, from my explanation its pretty clear that I considered just about anything with at least 1 16+ playable. So, actually, I'd guess we are pretty much exactly on the same page - exactly as you'd expect if my theory that what was 'hopeless' was derived from expectations about the mathematical averages. As for the rest, it's not worth responding to at length. It would be fairly easy to devise point buy to allow for scores of any range, and in a well balanced system this would be fairly easy. I'm pretty sure the only reason that D20 didn't do this by default was an admission that not all abilities were created equal in the default game. Likewise, the choice to use point buy to create cookie cutter characters is just that - a choice. And if when presented with the opportunity to create cookie cutter characters you do, then chances are diversity isn't the reason you like randomness. Exceeding 25 point buy implies that there is a choice between using point buy and random - which there often isn't. I never encountered point buy as a choice for D&D until I played 3e. So if the goal was to exceed the equivalent of 25 point buy, only by manipulating 'random' chargen could you consistently do that. However, even where point buy a choice, there would still be people who'd prefer random to it precisely because you can manipulate it and do so without really reflecting on the fact that you are doing so. There is a certain boost to ones self-esteem that comes from feeling you earned a 40+ point buy character when you 'randomly' roll it up, for example, that you don't get when the DM says, "Sure, make 45 point buy characters." People would rather think of themselves as "hard core" and "old school" and whatever. Except no one actually plays characters with multiple 3s nearly as often as they play characters with multiple 18s - or at all. For one thing, if you actually did randomly generate a 1e character with 2 or more 5's or less, it's literally unplayable (by the rules, you qualify for no class). We've already established that the possibility of playing 1 or more very low stats doesn't really exist (except in parallel to also having mitigating good stats). Everyone in this conversation admits that do overs were done when the character was "hopeless". So in fact the real results aren't sometimes high and sometimes low, but high and high. And that isn't actually random - though some of us aren't admitting it. You can pretend its random all you want, but after you've admitted in practice the methodology isn't random, it's no longer unreasonably to note that it isn't random regardless of what you claim about it being random. [/QUOTE]

Verification